Copies of the Bible

[Jerusalem]

Hello Forum:

Recently someone told me that we don’t have the original
copies of Mth, Mk, Lk, or Jn. As such, we have copies of
various codices or rather copies of copies. Does anyone know
whether there is a general uniformity or exact replecation of the various copies or do they differ slightly? Secondly, Doesn’t a miscopy of the original word distort inerrancy for that particular word ? I believe the bible is inerrant but not all the copyists could have gotten it right. Third, Do we have copies of the original gospels in the language they were written?

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Jeff

 

[Michael96]

Hello Forum:

Recently someone told me that we don’t have the original
copies of Mth, Mk, Lk, or Jn. As such, we have copies of
various codices or rather copies of copies. Does anyone know
whether there is a general uniformity or exact replecation of the various copies or do they differ slightly? Secondly, Doesn’t a miscopy of the original word distort inerrancy for that particular word ? I believe the bible is inerrant but not all the copyists could have gotten it right. Third, Do we have copies of the original gospels in the language they were written?

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Jeff

Here’s a nice summary from New Advent

There are many old texts (none original) and there are some differences. Most Bibles will have footnotes on what the differences are.

Probably the most significant debate is whether Mark 16:9–20 (the resurrection) existed in the original manuscripts or whether it was a later addition to that Gospel. But again most Bibles will have a note saying that the ending does not exist in all manuscripts.

But yes, I don’t think we can be sure of literal inerrancy (but that is probably more to do with translational differences than differences in the Greek and Hebrew texts).

 

[patg]

Recently someone told me that we don’t have the original copies of Mth, Mk, Lk, or Jn. As such, we have copies of various codices or rather copies of copies. Does anyone know whether there is a general uniformity or exact replecation of the various copies or do they differ slightly? Secondly, Doesn’t a miscopy of the original word distort inerrancy for that particular word ? I believe the bible is inerrant but not all the copyists could have gotten it right. Third, Do we have copies of the original gospels in the language they were written?

The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

None of the bibles we use are from a single or original source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

If you are interested in what the Church says about innerrancy and biblical inspiration, you should read a very clear (and inexpensive) discussion on this topic in Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D.Witherup S.S. This small book explores the subject from a Catholic perspective and also has an *imprimatur *and *nihil obstat (*in case you are concerned about getting your “facts” from a bunch of random strangers, as you should be).

 

[Verbum]

Hi Jeff,

No work of an ancient author exists as early or as often as the Bible.

There is a science of manuscripts that can establish their “genealogy”. In other words, it is possible to determine which manuscripts came first and what manuscript was copied from which. With this information, specialists establish what are called “critical editions”, which use the most probable reading in the body of the text and list the variants in footnotes. One of the most popular critical editions of the New Testament, for example, is Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, (The New Testament in Greek and Latin) originally by Dr. Eberhard Nestle, simply called the “Nestle”.

Translators of the Bible use critical editions, of course, but not slavishly. They sometimes follow the readings witnessed by very old tranlations, like the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the Syriac, the authors of which had access to much older manuscripts.

Do you have other questions?

Verbum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There are no originals. We have thousands of copies of copies of copies. They do not all agree by any means. There were scribal errors both inadvertent and intentional. Occasionally scholars find admonitions in the text itself demanding that scribes transcribe their works accurately. Apparently it was a well known problem even in the earliest years.

Thus all claims of inerrency are fallacious as they must be. For reasons unknown some people cling to certain translations as perfectly accurate, but of course they have only doubled the problem. The transcripts themselves are in doubt, and then you layer upon that translational errors of many sorts.

I think most texts agree in basics of course, but there are well-known passages today that no one is quite sure of.

 

[inthecloud]

Thus all claims of inerrency are fallacious as they must be. For reasons unknown some people cling to certain translations as perfectly accurate, but of course they have only doubled the problem. The transcripts themselves are in doubt, and then you layer upon that translational errors of many sorts.

Great post as usual. (No longer Iowa musings?).

True. As the DSS has proven sometimes entire verses had been mistakenly got out of the Bible.

I laught when I read in fundie statements of faith that the Bible is inerrat in the originals, originals no one has ever seen.
That is why you need a visible church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Great post as usual. (No longer Iowa musings?).

True. As the DSS has proven sometimes entire verses had been mistakenly got out of the Bible.

I laught when I read in fundie statements of faith that the Bible is inerrat in the originals, originals no one has ever seen.
That is why you need a visible church.

What’s worse, they always point to the KJV as the inerrent text of all things. It’s wonderfully poetic, but is undoubtedly one of the worst and most unreliable of translations.

I discontinued Iowa Musings some time ago. I never intended it to go the way it did, into a strictly religious thing, and eventually I decided that the constant argument with such a tiny minority of Catholicism was not productive.The fact is, most Catholics are moderate and totally uninterested in discussing whether the priest holds the host high enough during the consecration. I kid you not there are blogs out there that question such trivia. I’m much more comfortable in my “eclectic skin” lol.

 

[Michael96]

Thus all claims of inerrency are fallacious as they must be.

There’s one phrase I heard which did stick with me*…“when we read the Bible with a heart open to God the Bible will infallibly do what God wants it to do”.*

That may possibly be hyperbole, but it did give me a strengthened trust in putting Bible reading at the centre of daily faith life (between masses on Sundays).

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There’s one phrase I heard which did stick with me*…“when we read the Bible with a heart open to God the Bible will infallibly do what God wants it to do”.*

That may possibly be hyperbole, but it did give me a strengthened trust in putting Bible reading at the centre of daily faith life (between masses on Sundays).

I agree with you 100% and believe that that indeed is what the bible was supposed to be for. Instead some want to confine it to a particular interpretation, often of their own choice and adher to it as if it were a manual to be followed to the letter. It, by its very nature cannot be that.